In the our previous post, we talked about some of the ways we measured Acquisition and Activation of our users. Perhaps the most obvious drop-off we noticed was the mobile-gate in the app–users visiting on a mobile device could not play the game. Up to 40% of our users seemed to be visiting on a mobile device, then dropping off before playing a case.
This week we set out to primarily adapt the app to be mobile-friendly, in order to bring up that conversion to Activation percentage. After our adaptation for mobile,we saw a 230% increase in overall usage, a 403% increase on mobile, and 346% increase in tablet usage.
Check it out for yourself: OnPar (Send us your feedback!)
We use design critiques to gather professional perspective on our designs. This week, we did a design critique with several thoughtbot designers and the Mayo team for our new mobile design. The process works as follows:
One of the keys to this method is that the presenter is not allowed to try to explain or defend anything commented on. This creates an open atmosphere where people feel free to provide critical feedback. Also, it allows for many topics to be covered in a short amount of time by many people. If the presenter had to explain everything, the group would likely fixate on one or two issues and only have time to discuss those. In this case, we received over two dozen individual pieces of feedback on everything from the color, to the layout, to the language, etc.
We wanted to test the OnPar concept outside of Primary Care specialty that used more images in their daily workflow. So we worked with a Physician to craft a Pathology speciality case. In order to do this, we needed the application to support images in the “Patient Info” and card answers sections of the app. Here is one of the stains shown in an answer card:
In the coming weeks, we will be encouraging Pathology educators and learners to sign up and give it a shot! Our experiment asserts that these students will convert at or better than our baseline measurement from the previous weeks.
We wanted to do some interviews with educators and learners outside of Mayo to keep our minds grounded in the larger marketplace. Through personal connections, we ended up presenting at a NYU educators innovation monthly meeting. It was not exactly the context of 1-on-1 customer interviews we had done in the past: we had 1 hour, and 16 participants. We were in for a lively session!
We did not want it to devolve into a presentation, or pitch. We also didn’t want voices to be dominated or remain silent in the face of so many people. So, we broke the group into 4, and each of us handled one group. While 1-on-4 is still difficult to manage and take notes, we think this worked out great. We were able to witness these groups interact with OnPar, and each other simultaneously. It gave us a lot of insight in how the app might fight socially among many users.
Because our notes covered all manner of topic, we decided to conduct an Affinity Synthesis to organize our notes:
In addition to the group-setting, we also sat down with five individuals either in medical school at NYU, currently in residency, or post-residency. With our recent mobile updates (that also adjusted the interface for desktop users) we wanted to watch people use OnPar to test the efficacy of the interface. We discovered many user interface breakdowns, small and large. For example, the game board on mobile behaved weirdly when the user tapped and held. This turned out to be a technical issue with mobile Safari and Chrome, and we resolved it quickly.
At a higher level, we got a lot of confusing and sometimes negative feedback regarding the wording used in cases and cards. Originally, the visual size of the small square card severely limited our character count to well-below the size of a Tweet. Now, the new design can hold longer and more-detailed descriptions. We are now planning to work with a medical writer to improve the cases within OnPar.